Thanks for your reply. I don't understand the highlighted part. I thought you had spoken well of the film but then you referred to it as "mediocre". So I just wanted your take on it. The rest of my questions were also simple curiosity! My perspective would be that I would be disappointed if a director whose work I admired, such as his "The Trip" with Steve Coogan, made a film that hinted towards the guilt of the girl suspect, and that if the film ended with the acquittal (that the director appears to sympathise with), then I would enjoy the film more, even though I would know it was just an art film that ultimately had no bearing on the Knox case.
ETA I will see the film!
I speak well of the film as it presents "the case", esp. as the early tabloids, and hacks like Nick Pisa and Barbie Nadeau hopelessly compromised the public record. The irony of ironies is that the film gets its traction by buying the rights to Nadeau's slutty little book.....
..... and then does a 180 degree turn on her. Nadeau doesn't seem to care. As the Sfarzo-character says in the film, "Why should you be the only one making money from this....." Beckinsale plays the Nadeau-character, and there's one seminal scene....
Beckinsale is up in Bruhl's room discussing the case. They were talking about all the free-sex and drug use among students in Perugia, and potentially how it had played in the murder.
Then Bruhl says something like, "I guess you're spending the night with that other reporter." Her response, "Not tonight I'm not." Then the two of them fall into bed..... later what with all the cocaine floating between the reporters, even a dimwit like me gets it.....
Winterbottom is casting those early reporters as tabloid-hacks, and hardcore money-grubbing hypocrites to boot. With the exception of Sfarzo. It's not until Bruhl ditches Beckinsale, and turns to the Cara-character (fictional) does he even have a chance to figure out student life in Perugia.
So, I think the film is good in that it understands the case. With exceptions. The film, as a film, is probably mediocre. At TIFF it had no traction, and if Cara had not appeared in Toronto in that incredible green dress, it would have had no mention at all from the 350+ films featured.
The exceptions? The interrogations (both of Raffaele and of Amanda) are simply headshots, with the two only speaking to people off-screen; no dialogue coming from off-screen either. The Amanda-character simply dead-pans her "false confession" with no context. This could have been Amanda telling a friend about Lumumba over coffee atStarbucks, rather than an interrogation.
It was suggested to me that Winterbottom purposely did the interrogations that way to avoid his own calunnia. It could not have been more minimalist, and it was deceiving, mainly due to (it was suggested) legal concerns.
There was also another brief scene when a larger gaggle of reporters were (early on) discussing if there'd be a conviction - this was set in 2009. One of the American reporters makes a reference to an obvious PR campaign back in the States that was polluting the record for Americans!!! I mean, that was probably the lone nod to Nadeau in the whole film.
I apologize for going off on thinking you were giving me grief!!!
It's been put to me even from a pro-innocence point of view, that this film is still yet another commercial enterprise making money off of the Kercher's grief, and the victimization of Sollecito/Knox. I'm not sure what to think of that - capitalists are going to exploit this sort of thing, that's what they do.
Anyway, there is a thread on IIP about the film. I have a rather disorganized summary at the beginning, and then the debate rages from there!
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=3111&p=149836&hilit=winterbottom#p149836
There's also a review by Nigel Scott.
http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/face-of-an-angel-directed-by-michael-winterbottom-film-review/